“This is the part of politics he would naturally enjoy, and he wants to control it 100 percent,” said a high-level Trump campaign source. “This is a massive television production and he is a television star.”...

Whereas the vice presidential nominee has generally spoken on the third night of the convention and the presidential candidate has taken the stage on the fourth and final night, Trump is considering a scenario that puts him on stage, delivering remarks on all four nights, reaching millions of potential voters, and driving ratings, according to one source.

27 comments:

Here's hoping night one is the anti-Hillary speech, an hour long, with detailed descriptions of her lifelong enabling of her rapist husband's sexual conquests, her lifelong mendacity, her lifelong malfeasance, her lifelong corruption and her lifelong inability to succeed at anything herself.

He could spend the last twelve seconds on her accomplishments as a Senator and SecState, to be fair.

I've never watched a minute of either convention (are the entire things televised?) but I certainly will this summer. Between the Dems (hopefully) throwing chairs and rioting and the GOP staging a fabulous beauty pageant for ugly people along with BLM, etc., rioting outside, they should be really good shows.

Trump has something that no other GOP candidate in history has ever had: showmanship. Personality-wise, he's the complete opposite of most traditional Republican candidates, in particular Mitt Romney. Guys like Mitt Romney tended to be reserved, apologetic, stiff, stereotypical dull old rich whiteguys that the Democrats and the media could poke fun at endlessly. Voters generally care much more about personality than policy. All that, combined with the fact that Hillary is so god awful as a candidate, leads me to reassess my position that Hillary will ultimately win in November.

The best part of both of the shows indeed the only part worth watching will be the rioting. Hopefully the cops in both locations will go wild and bust heads left and right.

The difference is that if the cops bust heads outside the Republican convention, the Republicans will be blamed, while if they do it outside the Democratic convention, the Republicans will be blamed. Okay, so technically that is not a difference, more like a double standard.

Trump will announce that he will have a different VP for each of his first 4 years as president. Year 1 will be an economic guru who will re-ignite the American job engine. Year 2 will be a foreign policy wonk who will fix our broken diplomatic/military complex. Year 3 will be an immigration expert who will get the borders under control, and finalize the dispostion of the 50 million illegals already here. Year 4 of course will be a glamour VP who will aid Trump in getting re-elected.

Nonapod, Paul, Hagar, you forget that a Trump win in November requires him to get more votes than Hillary, and then in addition to get more votes than any possible amount Hillary's supporters can generate fraudulently both before, during and after election day. That is one hella big obstacle to a Trump win.

My $100 bet, made in November 2012, is still on the shrew/harpy/witch/criminal Hillary to squeak by the Donald, unless he somehow tricks her into reporting ALL her votes before his count is complete.

MaxedOutMama said: "Nonapod - but does the electorate want a PT Barnum as president?" Few people seem to remember that as well as being a businessman and showman that P. T. Barnum was also a successful politician. He served for 8 years in the Connecticut legislature after the Civl War and also later served as mayor of Bridgeport, CT.

Nonapod - but does the electorate want a PT Barnum as president? Or would the electorate want someone who seems to have a bit more depth?

People might be attracted, amused and interested, but does he make them buy into the concept of himself as president? In the end, that's what matters.

I used to believe that, that people wanted depth (or at least the appearance of depth) in a president. I believe there was a time in this country when things like gravitas, seriousness, and a sense of decorum were absolute prerequisites for a presidential candidate to have a chance. But for a whole host of reasons, I'm no longer convinced that's the case.

I think the modern American voter is guided far more emotionality these days. There's a general sense that the people in power have been getting away with stuff for a long time, screwing over the little guy, and blatantly lying and lying and lying. That's why we have the Trump phenomenon. That's why we have the Sanders phenomenon. People feel cheated and ripped off, and they're sick and tired of it. They're looking to flip over the game board. And when people are angry it's difficult to rationalize with them, especially when you may agree with them on some things.

"They will not hesitate to pull out all the stops. And the MSM will aid and abet it, as always.'

Except this time the MSM's aiding and abetting just keeps backfiring and redounding in Trump's favor because people are sick of the MSM and it's phony attempt to present itself as objective news. That's why you people are all behind the curve. You are assessing the future solely by looking in the rear view mirror not realizing you're on a whole new stretch of road. If you can't see Trump's ability to use jujitsu to turn his enemies attacking energies back against them by now I guess it's because you don't want it to be so.

Well Wilbur if you don't necessarily disagree then perhaps "you people" doesn't apply to you and you can calm the fuck down. No need to be so literal minded. It suggests a lack of imagination. Obviously I'm referring to a subset of commenters here, not necessarily everyone. Or at least it should be obvious.